Walmart subsidizes the U.S. government's welfare program to a tune of. $15,080 per employee a year

[bripat9643]

Employers have learned that if they cry about worker shortages they can get the government to allow them to bring in cheap foreign labor from third world shitholes.

I don't see republicans doing anything to stop that.

They're voting out the establishment RINOs and voting in those who support enforcing our immigration laws.

Yeah that is going really well. They are doing a whole lot of nothing and they control congress.

What do you propose?

I propose they actually do something. I don't believe they want to do something about immigration. They control congress and do nothing. Too many donors benefit from cheap labor.

Yeah, that's certainly a brilliant solution to them doing nothing: tell them to do something!

You're a fucking rocket scientist!

 

[Brain357]

I don't see republicans doing anything to stop that.

They're voting out the establishment RINOs and voting in those who support enforcing our immigration laws.

Yeah that is going really well. They are doing a whole lot of nothing and they control congress.

What do you propose?

I propose they actually do something. I don't believe they want to do something about immigration. They control congress and do nothing. Too many donors benefit from cheap labor.

Yeah, that's certainly a brilliant solution to them doing nothing: tell them to do something!

You're a fucking rocket scientist!

You are impressed by how they talk about what the problem is and still do nothing?

They control congress, they can do something if they really wanted.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure I'll give you the easy to understand version. Suppose you own a restaurant. Now regardless of how much people make they generally only eat 3 times a day. So to be successful you need lots of people with enough money to go out to eat. So if there is one really rich guy and lots of poor who can't afford to go out to eat, your restaurant will fail. The rich guy only eats 3 times a day. But lots of people making good money who can afford to go out to eat will make your restaurant do well. We have a very rich minority and few people who can afford to go out to eat regularly.

Well thank you very much for posting something that makes absolutely no sense.

So tell me: if the government took all the money from the rich guy, how would that help the restaurant? After all, if you take money from the rich guy, that doesn't make the poor people anymore wealthy. They are just as poor as before.

 

[bripat9643]

They're voting out the establishment RINOs and voting in those who support enforcing our immigration laws.

Yeah that is going really well. They are doing a whole lot of nothing and they control congress.

What do you propose?

I propose they actually do something. I don't believe they want to do something about immigration. They control congress and do nothing. Too many donors benefit from cheap labor.

Yeah, that's certainly a brilliant solution to them doing nothing: tell them to do something!

You're a fucking rocket scientist!

You are impressed by how they talk about what the problem is and still do nothing?

They control congress, they can do something if they really wanted.

Yeah, so just go yell at them and I'm certain they will hop right to it!

 

[Brain357]

Sure I'll give you the easy to understand version. Suppose you own a restaurant. Now regardless of how much people make they generally only eat 3 times a day. So to be successful you need lots of people with enough money to go out to eat. So if there is one really rich guy and lots of poor who can't afford to go out to eat, your restaurant will fail. The rich guy only eats 3 times a day. But lots of people making good money who can afford to go out to eat will make your restaurant do well. We have a very rich minority and few people who can afford to go out to eat regularly.

Well thank you very much for posting something that makes absolutely no sense.

So tell me: if the government took all the money from the rich guy, how would that help the restaurant? After all, if you take money from the rich guy, that doesn't make the poor people anymore wealthy. They are just as poor as before.

You can understand something that simple? Amazing.

Who suggested taking money from the rich guy? We are discussing why too much inequality slows an economy. I gave it to you in very simple terms and you still don't understand.

 

[Brain357]

Yeah that is going really well. They are doing a whole lot of nothing and they control congress.

What do you propose?

I propose they actually do something. I don't believe they want to do something about immigration. They control congress and do nothing. Too many donors benefit from cheap labor.

Yeah, that's certainly a brilliant solution to them doing nothing: tell them to do something!

You're a fucking rocket scientist!

You are impressed by how they talk about what the problem is and still do nothing?

They control congress, they can do something if they really wanted.

Yeah, so just go yell at them and I'm certain they will hop right to it!

I will just vote against them. They were given congress and chose to do nothing.

 

[Brain357]

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html

 

[bripat9643]

What do you propose?

I propose they actually do something. I don't believe they want to do something about immigration. They control congress and do nothing. Too many donors benefit from cheap labor.

Yeah, that's certainly a brilliant solution to them doing nothing: tell them to do something!

You're a fucking rocket scientist!

You are impressed by how they talk about what the problem is and still do nothing?

They control congress, they can do something if they really wanted.

Yeah, so just go yell at them and I'm certain they will hop right to it!

I will just vote against them. They were given congress and chose to do nothing.

Yeah, rIght, because you would have voted Republican if they did something about illegal immigration?

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[Brain357]

I propose they actually do something. I don't believe they want to do something about immigration. They control congress and do nothing. Too many donors benefit from cheap labor.

Yeah, that's certainly a brilliant solution to them doing nothing: tell them to do something!

You're a fucking rocket scientist!

You are impressed by how they talk about what the problem is and still do nothing?

They control congress, they can do something if they really wanted.

Yeah, so just go yell at them and I'm certain they will hop right to it!

I will just vote against them. They were given congress and chose to do nothing.

Yeah, rIght, because you would have voted Republican if they did something about illegal immigration.

Who do you think you're fooling?

I'm very lawful so I certainly don't support illegal immigration. I also don't think in our current economic status that we need foreign workers coming here to work. Republicans choose to pretend they want to do something and they have duped you. They control congress, they could do something if they wanted.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can understand something that simple? Amazing.

Who suggested taking money from the rich guy? We are discussing why too much inequality slows an economy. I gave it to you in very simple terms and you still don't understand.

Correct, I can't understand that because it makes no sense.

The implication is that people (who are poor) face that fate because others have too much money. It follows the failed liberal philosophy that we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, if one has too much, that's the reason others have too little.

There is no truth to that at all because there is no actual pie to divide. If one is poor, it has nothing to do with how much another person has, it has to do with ones own failures.

Now if you're not suggesting taking money from the rich guy, then WTF are you suggesting as the solution?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html

Why Rich Consumers Matter More

 

[Brain357]

You can understand something that simple? Amazing.

Who suggested taking money from the rich guy? We are discussing why too much inequality slows an economy. I gave it to you in very simple terms and you still don't understand.

Correct, I can't understand that because it makes no sense.

The implication is that people (who are poor) face that fate because others have too much money. It follows the failed liberal philosophy that we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, if one has too much, that's the reason others have too little.

There is no truth to that at all because there is no actual pie to divide. If one is poor, it has nothing to do with how much another person has, it has to do with ones own failures.

Now if you're not suggesting taking money from the rich guy, then WTF are you suggesting as the solution?

We weren't discussing a solution. You asked for me to explain the problem. I showed you why too much inequality slows an economy. In the very simple example the restaurant fails because of too much inequality. I have also post more complicated explanations. You are surprised that too much inequality would slow an economy? The US was strong because it had a very strong middle class.

 

[Brain357]

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html

Why Rich Consumers Matter More

From your 2009 article:
The wealthy aren't likely to share those bonuses or their stock gains, of course, so mainstream Americans need to wait for the ever elusive trickle-down benefits. And that highlights another economic anomaly: We may actually be in the midst of a two-tier recovery in which life is getting better for a small minority of Americans at the top of the income chain, and they spend enough additional money to drive up spending and other stats and make it look like there's a real recovery. But the same so-called recovery could bypass many ordinary Americans, which is what seems to be happening now.

It is now 2016, there is no trickle down.

 

[Brain357]

Countries with lots of inequality aren't exactly economic powerhouses:
Countries ranked by GINI index (World Bank estimate)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

From your 2009 article:
The wealthy aren't likely to share those bonuses or their stock gains, of course, so mainstream Americans need to wait for the ever elusive trickle-down benefits. And that highlights another economic anomaly: We may actually be in the midst of a two-tier recovery in which life is getting better for a small minority of Americans at the top of the income chain, and they spend enough additional money to drive up spending and other stats and make it look like there's a real recovery. But the same so-called recovery could bypass many ordinary Americans, which is what seems to be happening now.

It is now 2016, there is no trickle down.

Also from my article:

The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.

 

[Brain357]

From your 2009 article:
The wealthy aren't likely to share those bonuses or their stock gains, of course, so mainstream Americans need to wait for the ever elusive trickle-down benefits. And that highlights another economic anomaly: We may actually be in the midst of a two-tier recovery in which life is getting better for a small minority of Americans at the top of the income chain, and they spend enough additional money to drive up spending and other stats and make it look like there's a real recovery. But the same so-called recovery could bypass many ordinary Americans, which is what seems to be happening now.

It is now 2016, there is no trickle down.

Also from my article:

The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.

Your article is obviously very wrong, it is now 2016.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We weren't discussing a solution. You asked for me to explain the problem. I showed you why too much inequality slows an economy. In the very simple example the restaurant fails because of too much inequality. I have also post more complicated explanations. You are surprised that too much inequality would slow an economy? The US was strong because it had a very strong middle class.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

One one hand, you say that the restaurant failed because the rich have too much money, but then say that taking their money away would do no good which we both agree on. Taking their money away has nothing to do with the middle-class. So which is it?

A better explanation is that we now have over 1/3 of our people of working age not working nor looking for a job. Don't you think that would have more to do with a restaurants failure than what rich people have?

When 93 million Americans of working age are not working, then they must have alternative means of support. If they are not working, they are either wealthy or living on government programs. And government programs don't pay enough for a family to dine in this fantasy restaurant of yours.

The reason you don't have a solution to the problem is because what you point to as the problem is not the problem at all. Nearly every problem has a solution, but you must accurately point to what the problem is in the first place.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your article is obviously very wrong, it is now 2016.

Of course. The article is wrong, but you're right.

Typical liberal.

 

[Brain357]

We weren't discussing a solution. You asked for me to explain the problem. I showed you why too much inequality slows an economy. In the very simple example the restaurant fails because of too much inequality. I have also post more complicated explanations. You are surprised that too much inequality would slow an economy? The US was strong because it had a very strong middle class.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

One one hand, you say that the restaurant failed because the rich have too much money, but then say that taking their money away would do no good which we both agree on. Taking their money away has nothing to do with the middle-class. So which is it?

A better explanation is that we now have over 1/3 of our people of working age not working nor looking for a job. Don't you think that would have more to do with a restaurants failure than what rich people have?

When 93 million Americans of working age are not working, then they must have alternative means of support. If they are not working, they are either wealthy or living on government programs. And government programs don't pay enough for a family to dine in this fantasy restaurant of yours.

The reason you don't have a solution to the problem is because what you point to as the problem is not the problem at all. Nearly every problem has a solution, but you must accurately point to what the problem is in the first place.

I didn't say it was because he had too much money. It is because of too much inequality, everyone else has too little money. What we need is a strong middle class again. This is something both parties used to understand. How did republicans get so foolish to think massive inequality is good for an economy? Like I already posted, the countries with the most inequality have awful economies.

 

[Brain357]

Your article is obviously very wrong, it is now 2016.

Of course. The article is wrong, but you're right.

Typical liberal.

It is clear too much inequality slows an economy.